METHODS: DNA samples from 92 patients and 156 healthy controls collected from two medical centers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia were analyzed for four regions located at X-chromosome using the Investigator® Argus X-12 QS Kit.
RESULTS: The results demonstrated that microvariant alleles of (DXS7132, DXS10146, HPRTB, DXS10134, and DXS10135) are overrepresented in the BPH group (p < 0.00001). Allele 28 of DXS10135 and allele 15 of DXS7423 could have a protective effect, OR 0.229 (95%CI, 0.066-0.79); and OR 0.439 (95%CI, 0.208-0.925). On the other hand, patients carrying allele 23 of DXS10079 and allele 26 of DXS10148 presented an increased risk to PrCa OR 4.714 (95%CI, 3.604-6.166).
CONCLUSION: The results are in concordance with the involvement of the X chromosome in PrCa and BPH development. STR allele studies may add further information from the definition of a genetic profile of PrCa resistance or susceptibility. As TBL1, AR, LDOC1, and RPL10 genes are located at regions Xp22.31, Xq11.2-12, Xq26.2, and Xq28, respectively, these genes could play an essential role in PrCa or BPH.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: MicroRNA software predicted that miR21 targets VCL while miR29a targets CX3CL1. Twenty benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and 16 high grade CaP formalinfixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) specimens were analysed. From the bone scan results, high grade CaP samples were further classified into CaP with no BM and CaP with BM. Transient transfection with respective microRNA inhibitors was done in both RWPE1 (normal) and PC3 cell lines. QPCR was performed in all FFPE samples and transfected cell lines to measure VCL and CX3CL1 levels.
RESULTS: QPCR confirmed that VCL messenger RNA (mRNA) was significantly down regulated while CX3CL1 was upregulated in all FFPE specimens. Transient transfection with microRNA inhibitors in PC3 cells followed by qPCR of the targeted genes showed that VCL mRNA was significantly up regulated while CX3CL1 mRNA was significantly downregulated compared to the RWPE1 case.
CONCLUSIONS: The downregulation of VCL in FFPE specimens is most likely regulated by miR21 based on the in vitro evidence but the exact mechanism of how miR21 can regulate VCL is unclear. Upregulated in CaP, CX3CL1 was found not regulated by miR29a. More microRNA screening is required to understand the regulation of this chemokine in CaP with bone metastasis. Understanding miRNAmRNA interactions may provide additional knowledge for individualized study of cancers.
METHODS: Study subjects included men with initial PSA between 4.0 and 10.0 ng/ml that have undergone 12-core TRUS-guided prostate biopsy between 2009 and 2016. The prostate cancer detection rate was calculated, while potential factors associated with detection were investigated via univariable and multivariable analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 617 men from a multi-ethnic background encompassing Chinese (63.5%), Malay (23.1%) and Indian (13.3%) were studied. The overall cancer detection rate was 14.3% (88/617), which included cancers detected at biopsy 1 (first biopsy), biopsy 2 (second biopsy with previous negative biopsy) and biopsy ≥ 3 (third or more biopsies with prior negative biopsies). Indian men displayed higher detection rate (23.2%) and increased risk of prostate cancer development (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.03-3.32, p
FINDINGS: Differences in genetics, environment, lifestyle, diet and culture are all likely to influence the management of advanced prostate cancer in the APAC region when compared with the rest of the world. When considering the strong APCCC 2017 recommendation for the use of upfront docetaxel in metastatic castration-naïve prostate cancer, the panel noted possible increased toxicity in Asian men receiving docetaxel, which would affect this recommendation in the APAC region. Although androgen receptor-targeting agents appear to be well tolerated in Asian men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, access to these drugs is very limited for financial reasons across the region. The meeting highlighted that cost and access to contemporary treatments and technologies are key factors influencing therapeutic decision-making in the APAC region. Whilst lower cost/older treatments and technologies may be an option, issues of culture and patient or physician preference mean, these may not always be acceptable. Although generic products can reduce cost in some countries, costs may still be prohibitive for lower-income patients or communities. The panellists noted the opportunity for a coordinated approach across the APAC region to address issues of access and cost. Developments in technologies and treatments are presenting new opportunities for the diagnosis and treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Differences in genetics and epidemiology affect the side-effect profiles of some drugs and influence prescribing.
CONCLUSIONS: As the field continues to evolve, collaboration across the APAC region will be important to facilitate relevant research and collection and appraisal of data relevant to APAC populations. In the meantime, the APAC APCCC 2018 meeting highlighted the critical importance of a multidisciplinary team-based approach to treatment planning and care, delivery of best-practice care by clinicians with appropriate expertise, and the importance of patient information and support for informed patient choice.
METHODS: Six key sections were chosen: (1) high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) oligometastatic prostate cancer, (3) castration-naïve prostate cancer, (4) castrate resistant prostate cancer, (5) use of osteoclast-targeted therapy and (6) global access to prostate cancer drugs. There were 101 consensus questions, consisting of 91 questions from APCCC 2017 and 10 new questions from MyAPCCC 2018, selected and modified by the steering committee; of which, 23 questions were assessed in both ideal world and real-world settings. A panel of 22 experts, comprising of 11 urologists and 11 oncologists, voted on 101 predefined questions anonymously. Final voting results were compared with the APCCC 2017 outcomes.
RESULTS: Most voting results from the MyAPCCC 2018 were consistent with the APCCC 2017 outcomes. No consensus was achieved for controversial topics with little level I evidence, such as management of oligometastatic disease. No consensus was reached on using high-cost drugs in castration-naïve or castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer in real-world settings. All panellists recommended using generic drugs when available.
CONCLUSIONS: The MyAPCCC 2018 voting results reflect the management of advanced prostate cancer in a middle-income country in a real-world setting. These results may serve as a guide for local clinical practices and highlight the financial challenges in modern healthcare.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We established a multi-national, longitudinal, observational registry of patients with prostate cancer presenting to participating tertiary care hospitals in eight Asian countries. A total of 3636 eligible patients with existing or newly diagnosed high-risk localised prostate cancer (HRL), non-metastatic biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (M0), or metastatic prostate cancer (M1), were consecutively enrolled and are being followed-up for 5 years. Patient history, demographic and disease characteristics, treatment and treatment decisions, were collected at first prostate cancer diagnosis and at enrolment. Patient-reported quality of life was prospectively assessed using the European Quality of Life-five Dimensions, five Levels (EQ-5D-5L) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for Prostate Cancer questionnaires. In the present study, we report the first interim analysis of 2063 patients enrolled from study start (15 September 2015) until 18 May 2017.
RESULTS: Of the 2063 enrolled patients, 357 (17%), 378 (19%), and 1328 (64%) had HRL, M0 or M1 prostate cancer, respectively. The mean age at first diagnosis was similar in each group, 56% of all patients had extracapsular extension of their tumour, 28% had regional lymph node metastasis, and 53% had distant metastases. At enrolment, 62% of patients had at least one co-morbidity (mainly cardiovascular disease or diabetes), 91.8% of M1 patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of <2 and the mean EQ-5D-5L visual analogue score was 74.6-79.6 across cohorts. Treatment of M1 patients was primarily with combined androgen blockade (58%) or androgen-deprivation therapy (either orchidectomy or luteinising hormone-releasing hormone analogues) (32%). Decisions to start therapy were mainly driven by treatment guidelines and disease progression. Decision to discontinue therapy was most often due to disease progression (hormonal drug therapy) or completion of therapy (chemotherapy).
CONCLUSION: In the UFO registry of advanced prostate cancer in Asia, regional differences exist in prostate cancer treatment patterns that will be explored more deeply during the follow-up period; prospective follow-up is ongoing. The UFO registry will provide valuable descriptive data on current disease characteristics and treatment landscape amongst patients with prostate cancer in Asia.
METHODS: Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). After an average of 13.9 years of follow-up, there were 7024 incident prostate cancers and 934 prostate cancer deaths.
RESULTS: Height was not associated with total prostate cancer risk. Subgroup analyses showed heterogeneity in the association with height by tumour grade (P heterogeneity = 0.002), with a positive association with risk for high-grade but not low-intermediate-grade disease (HR for high-grade disease tallest versus shortest fifth of height, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.18-2.03). Greater height was also associated with a higher risk for prostate cancer death (HR = 1.43, 1.14-1.80). Body mass index (BMI) was significantly inversely associated with total prostate cancer, but there was evidence of heterogeneity by tumour grade (P heterogeneity = 0.01; HR = 0.89, 0.79-0.99 for low-intermediate grade and HR = 1.32, 1.01-1.72 for high-grade prostate cancer) and stage (P heterogeneity = 0.01; HR = 0.86, 0.75-0.99 for localised stage and HR = 1.11, 0.92-1.33 for advanced stage). BMI was positively associated with prostate cancer death (HR = 1.35, 1.09-1.68). The results for waist circumference were generally similar to those for BMI, but the associations were slightly stronger for high-grade (HR = 1.43, 1.07-1.92) and fatal prostate cancer (HR = 1.55, 1.23-1.96).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this large prospective study show that men who are taller and who have greater adiposity have an elevated risk of high-grade prostate cancer and prostate cancer death.
METHODS: PSAV was calculated using logistic regression to determine if PSA or PSAV predicted the result of prostate biopsy (PB) in men with elevated PSA values. Cox regression was used to determine whether PSA or PSAV predicted PSA elevation in men with low PSAs. Interaction terms were included in the models to determine whether BRCA status influenced the predictiveness of PSA or PSAV.
RESULTS: 1634 participants had ⩾3 PSA readings of whom 174 underwent PB and 45 PrCas diagnosed. In men with PSA >3.0 ng ml-l, PSAV was not significantly associated with presence of cancer or high-grade disease. PSAV did not add to PSA for predicting time to an elevated PSA. When comparing BRCA1/2 carriers to non-carriers, we found a significant interaction between BRCA status and last PSA before biopsy (P=0.031) and BRCA2 status and PSAV (P=0.024). However, PSAV was not predictive of biopsy outcome in BRCA2 carriers.
CONCLUSIONS: PSA is more strongly predictive of PrCa in BRCA carriers than non-carriers. We did not find evidence that PSAV aids decision-making for BRCA carriers over absolute PSA value alone.
SIGNIFICANCE: We demonstrate that combining large-scale GWA meta-analysis findings across cancer types can identify completely new risk loci common to breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers. We show that the identification of such cross-cancer risk loci has the potential to shed new light on the shared biology underlying these hormone-related cancers. Cancer Discov; 6(9); 1052-67. ©2016 AACR.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 932.